This little wooden 26 cm 18th century Hawaiian figure
Ex collection: Earls of Warwick, Warwick Castle, George Ortiz (1973-1978) and
Count Jean-Jacques de Launoit (1978-1981) is one of the most potent and remarkable
images in Hawaiian Art. I have included the below description from the current
owner because it is interesting to have the opinion of someone who has been
in possession of an object for over twenty years. Following his contibution
I have more to say on this remarkable object.

Made of a lightish brown wood probably darkened with plant
juices and polished, with strands of human hair pegged into holes on the head,
a deep cavity in the centre of the crown for placing various fetish materials.
Left eye still inlaid with pearl shell. Condition: the odd strand of matted
hair missing: over left eye, above outer corner of right eye and at centre back
of head behind cavity. A deep crack down the front of the cone-shaped circular
flaring base.

This image is in all likelihood an 'aumakua, a sort of personal
god, "... the primary idea of the word 'aumakua is the spirit of an ancestor,
deified and rendered potent for good or evil". Carved according to a certain
ritual by sculptor priests called kahuna kalai and activated when finished,
he was probably used in sorcery and associated with magic. Hawaiians had an
anthropomorphic concept of the universe and their sculptures embody ancestral
deities and cosmic spirits. To the Polynesians, gods were invisible spirits
symbolized by material objects.

The author has lived with him for most of the past twenty years
and is certain that the shaman-priest that used him in his invocations imbued
him with fearsome magical power , as revealed by his sculptural forms. His facial
expression is aggressive, awesome and frightening; his forms are bold, vigorous
and of an incredible power. He has a large head since it is the seat of mana.
He is vitally present, and his body and limbs are faceted and sculpted in relation
to each other in a manner that renders him terrifyingly dynamic. His profile
with its incredible jutting chin personifies brutal might.

A very good comparison is the 'aumakua image in London collected
in 1825 by John Knowles at Hale-o-Keawe Honaunau, Hawaii, when the H.M.S. Blonde
called there. Though very similar there are differences: it is fifty percent
taller, the mouth is almond-shaped and it has no cavity on the crown of the
head or in its back for fetish materials. It was probably made by a different
sculptor at a later date, maybe even Post-Contact. The eyes, mouth, the arms
and the tall neck, among other features, are less strong, maybe an indication,
with the lack of a cavity, that this god functioned as a protective spirit and
was not used for sorcery. Its blackened surface is slightly different. However,
it surely stood on a base which may have resembled that of this figure, since
the outer underside of both its feet is blackened and only the inside is the
colour of the wood, as are the breaks on the front and inside of both feet.
The back of the right foot is broken off.

In this entry the author has not discussed Hawaiian religion
but has gone into the history of this image at length and has even related his
personal experience. The reasons are as follows: an assessment of their religion
would be conjectural, and just before the arrival of Europeans important cultural
changes were taking place, a reformation of ideas and particularly religion.
The kapu system was completely overthrown in 1819. The history of this image
is essential as he may be one of the few that is genuine in the sense of having
been sculpted - before the arrival of Europeans - with all the prescribed ritual,
and activated. This is demonstrated by the way he is made and the ethos he exudes.
Moreover, he was almost certainly brought back on the third voyage, although
when the the Resolution and the Discovery docked in England, they were surely
already carrying on board images made during their stop in Hawaii. He is unusual
in that he stands on a pedestal and his hands are connected to his thighs, features
common only to temple images (see footnote 2). Why this is so is uncertain.
Very few of the extant images can be old for a variety of reasons: climatic
conditions would have ensured that they were short-lived, and the disruption
of a highly formal class system would have meant that a political and religious
climate propitious to their creation no longer existed. However, the immediate
awareness of the Europeans' desire for curios motivated a sculptural production
for barter. Davenport, following a suggestion by Kaeppler, says "..., it
is quite possible that some of the images that came back with the early European
voyages may have been made expressly for trade to Europeans rather than for
religious or other traditional uses". Though the outward appearance and
the physical way of making such images may be the same, even if metal tools
were used, they are devoid of content and were not activated. The natives may
have kept the outward forms of ritual for some time but without true faith their
images would have been devoid of meaning, and that is what matters.

What is it that imbued the Polynesians with this unique gift
for creating what are among the most perfect sculptures that the author knows
of, where outward appearance may reveal content?

It is almost certain that this work was acquired in Hawaii
on Captain Cook's third expedition in 1779, and entered the collection of the
Earls of Warwick through Sir Joseph Banks and Charles Greville possibly soon
afterwards and, if not then, surely in 1806.

In a letter dated 20 August 1973, after he had sold me the
piece which he had acquired at Sotheby's auction of the Warwick estate on 8
December 1969, Ralph Nash wrote that after much investigation and research,
he was convinced that the piece was "brought back on Captain Cook's ill-fated
third voyage" and ended up in "the great collection of Sir Ashton
Lever" who had bought in 1781 almost all the artefacts from this voyage.
This so strained his finances that he was forced to "sell his entire Museum".
He attempted to set up "a trust to operate his Museum" but found "no
one interested" and failed. His desperate efforts to have the "British
Government buy the enormous collection for the British Museum at a fraction
of its worth", also failed. In 1786, he was forced to dispose of his Museum
by lottery but only eight thousand 1 Gn tickets were sold out of thirty-six
thousand and he died a disillusioned and broken man two years later in Manchester.
"A Mr James Parkinson drew the winning number" and became the owner
of "the Museum and all its collections valued at the time at £ 53.000".
Everything was "removed to a house in Albion Street near Blackfriars Bridge.
In 1806 a public auction was made of the entire collections by King and Lochee
in a 65-day sale from May 5th to July 19th 1806 and comprised over 7800 different
lots and at this sale interested parties came from all over Europe, England,
etc. and it was at this sale that the Vienna Museum acquired all of its Cook
material which they have to this present day in their collections. Also at this
sale was Joseph Banks who bought anonymously both for himself and for his friend
the Hon. John Greville, eldest son of the Earl of Warwick, and at this sale
your Hawaiian figure was sold and so entered the collections of Warwick Castle
as did a number of other items all subsequently sold at Sotheby's".

Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Society from 1778
to 1820, was the financial sponsor of the scientific part of the expedition
and was the coordinator of the results of the voyages of exploration and must
have been concerned with the collection brought home by the expedition after
Cook's death in 1779. The Hon. Charles Francis Greville, F.R.S. (1749-1809)
was a very close friend of Banks and, like him, a member of the Dilettanti Society.
He was the younger brother of George, 2nd Earl of Warwick from 1773 to 1816,
F.R.S., who was also a friend of Banks and the greatest collector of his family.
Charles Greville is the natural channel through which this work could have entered
the collections of the Earls of Warwick. He himself may have been the earliest
English owner of the work; and it is relevant to note that he predeceased his
brother, died unmarried and lived in the latter part of his life at Warwick
Castle. It may also be noted that Greville was the nephew of Sir William Hamilton,
who presented to the King of Naples "curiosities ... of Captain Cook's
collecting amongst the islands of the South Seas (entry of 5 June, 1787 in the
Italian Journal of Captain Robert Scott, National Library of Scotland MSS. 2893-95).
As relations between them were close, it is likely that Greville helped Hamilton
to make this acquisition of Pacific antiquities. In referring to objects from
the Collection of the Earls of Warwick, The Trustees of the Warwick Castle Resettlement,
Dr. A. Kaeppler says (Artificial Curiosities <Honolulu, 1978): "Some
of the objects from this collection were certainly from Cook's voyages, but
no documents can be found that can identify which objects came from Cook's voyages
and which did not".

M.W. Farr, Warwickshire County Archivist, kindly wrote to the
author on 7 November 1986 stating that a description of the Castle was made
by the Rev. William Field, published in 1815. In it is described the Armoury
Passage, The Museum, where, says Farr: "... there was a very large collection
of miscellaneous armour and antiques". An inventory was made in 1853 and
Farr adds: "Unfortunately most of the exhibits were beyond the descriptive
powers of the maker of the inventory, but he does apply the words 'South Sea'
to quite a lot of them, mostly in what he calls the 'Indian Department'. There
is an 'Indian God' between some stuffed owls and a flying fish on an earlier
page, but it is impossible to say whether this is really your Hawaiian figure.
The whole area was an extraordinary muddle of interesting but unrelated things."
He concludes: "I think your carving must have been on show in this part
of the Castle". It should be noted that under the section "The Indian
Department", there were pieces of South Sea ornament and manufacture.

Cox (Cox, J.H., Davenport, W.H.: Hawaiian Sculpture,) points
out that its being on a pedestal is unusual as are also the hands connected
to the thighs, features common only to temple images.

The author has become an agnostic and does not believe in any
religion or ideology but is convinced that there is a power of mind over matter
and that certain humans can imbue material objects with powers which may be
beneficial or malevolent to certain beholders. During the first few years of
his ownership of this image, every woman that saw it in his home was horrified
and disliked it. It made them feel uneasy. For unfortunate personal reasons
the author had to sell his collection at Sotheby's. When the 'aumakua came up
and just as Peter Wilson, a friend of the collector and Chairman of Sotheby's,
had his arm raised about to drop the hammer, the author turned to his wife at
the fractional instant and blurted out as though from the depth of his plexus
"Do you think that he'll forgive me for letting him go?" The author's
wife was horrified. Three years later he was able to buy him back and one day
having told been told of a Greek Orthodox priest who practised exorcism, he
said to himself "why not, let's try something". He arranged an appointment
and the priest accepted to conduct a forty-minute ritual with incense and invocations
over the 'aumakua as the author sat silent on a chair. Amazingly enough, from
that day onwards, the image no longer gives off evil, he has been neutralized.
The author cannot explain this but can only relate what he observes.

In Hawaiian mythology, an ?aumakua (pron.: /a?'m??ku??/; often
spelled aumakua) is a family god, often a deified ancestor. The Hawaiian plural
of ?aumakua is na ?aumakua ([na?'??uma?'kuw?]), although in English the plural
is usually aumakuas. Na aumakua frequently manifested as animals such as sharks
or owls. Na aumakua were worshipped at localities (often rocks) where they were
believed to "dwell". The appearance of an animal one regarded as an
?aumakua was often believed to be an omen (of good or ill). There are also many
stories of na aumakua (in animal form) intervening to save their descendants
from harm. It was extremely bad luck to harm a manifested ?aumakua.

Some families had many ?aumakua. Mary Kawena Pukui's family
had at least fifty known ?aumakua.

Na aumakua were thus animals, places or rocks, and people.
Ancient Hawaiians would have seen no contradiction in a powerful spirit being
able to appear as all three, switching from form to form as convenient—as
is indeed seen in many stories of gods and demigods.

A symbiotic relationship exists between person and ?aumakua,
the personal guardians of each individual and their family and the ancient source
gods from whom Hawaiians were descended.

Aumakua can manifest in nature. The form varies family to
family. Whatever its form, the aumakua is one specific shark, owl, etc. However,
all members of the species are treated with respect of family members.

If family aumakua, these manifestations were not harmed or
eaten; in turn, ?aumakua warned and reprimanded in dreams, visions, and calls.

"Aumakua are intimate members of the human family, spiritual
relationships with them are especially close and their presence is sought for
feast and festivity, as well as in time of crisis. They act as healers and advisors,
counteracting troubles and punishing faults."

This carving is very interesting being I believe very early
probably well predating European Contact. The style is a blend of the huge God
of War images from Hale-O-Keawe, the sacred burial place of the high-ranking
Hawaiian chiefs and the later images represented by the Hawaiian Standing Human
Figure (Ki'i 'aumakua) at the British Museum and others. There is a ferocity
about this carving that transcends mere aesthetics and enters that realm of
otherworldliness that lies at the very core of Polynesian spiritual belief.
There are few carvings that rise far above the generally fine quality of Polynesian
carving and go to another plane of truly great Human Art where the word genius
is not an overused cliche, and this carving is definitely one of those images.
The big surviving sculpture from Hale-O-Keawe are impressive but quite frankly
has always left me cold and with the distinct feeling that size and strangeness
have lead various authorities to give them a prominence and position by appearing
far more impressed than the quality of the carving deserves. But this little
carving as its owner points out in his comments above, achieves that place of
outer darkness where the big sculptures seek to go and somehow fail.

From a carver perspective Hawaiian carving is always faceted
like a cut gemstone. These facets probably originated from adze carving as on
some of the good early free standing Maori carvings, except in Hawaiian carving
this seems to have developed in to a style all its own, a sort of cubistic vision,
cleverly concentrating on volume at the same time, so the figures are chiselled
and chunky, which gives a very true idea of Polynesian ideal male physique.
The pose is original the hands pointing backwards and resting on the upper thighs
or buttocks. The legs are more splayed, knees strongly flexed and the body leans
forward aggressively. The head is indeed large, fierce but more human than the
British Museum's Temple image figure; Ku-ka'ili-moku with its four rows of stylised
pigs or dogs heads run from the bridge of the nose across tops of eyes and top
of head. To me the fact that Ku-ka'ili-moku is carved from a single trunk of
lowly breadfruit tree means it was never meant to possess the personal and intimate
mana of these smaller carvings but more in keeping with a public carving designed
to be impressive in its setting on the marae.

The mouth is an extraordinary invention perfectly designed
to give the image an sense of menace and menace is intended for unusually the
carving has hidden in the hair pegged to the head is a small hollow carved in
the wood made to hide tapu items for though the Aumakua's purpose is to protect
its owner I have no doubt it also had the function of bringing down misfortune
of his enemies. This carving was most likely carved by a member of the priestly
class and such is the quality of the carving I feel it probably was also the
personal property of the man who carved it or one of his decendents. I feel
strongly that the image very likely originally possessed a tapa cloth loincloth
coated in red ochre and one wonders given Hawaiian talent for feather weaving
if some of these figures did not also possess small versions of the wonderful
full scale cloaks that once were so common on the islands. The right eye is
missing its pearl shell insert and possibly both eyes also had black seeds glued
to shell with breadfruit sap to represent pupils.

he little base is interesting, and suggests that the figure
propably stood in a sort of alter perhaps in the owners house or perhaps in
a cave hidden from public view. If this was the case it would have been surrounded
by fetish items; Tapa cloth covered bones, beautiful calabashes, feathers, dog
skulls perhaps even items as exotic as the fantastic feather work Eye of the
God an example of which survives in the British Museum. What ever the case there
can be no doubt that this image in its original setting and original use was
a item subject to the most extreme form of tapu. Even in a two dimenional image
it breaths malignant menace, little wonder the present owner constantly for
twenty years in contact with the real three dimenional figure writes about it
with wonder and awe.

The British Museum has another fine example of a Temple
image 130 cm high which showed the same stance as the Aumakua but the head is
an abridged version of the Ku-ka'ili-moku, this suggests the stance and general
style was probably reasonably common.The only other question in my mind is did
the aumakua originally possess a bone plug in the mouth simulating teeth.

Sales Enquires This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Academic, Insitutional and Artist Enquires This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Unfortunately due to being a small institution without paid staff we have no
facility to answer general inquiries or comments.